Legal Opinion
State v. Formica
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 2, 1985No. 2613PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.
This case involves the issue of whether the failure of the state timely to serve the defendant with an inventory of an authorized wiretap requires the suppression of the evidence gathered by the wiretap. The trial court granted the defendant’s motions to suppress the evidence and to dismiss the charges against him with prejudice. The state, with the permission of the trial court, appealed. General Statutes § 54-96; Practice Book § 819. We find no error.
The facts are not in dispute. On February 23,1983, a three judge panel granted, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-41d, an application to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- United States v. DonovanSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. Thomas Fury and John QuinnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- State v. GrantSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- United States v. William c.wolkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. BrownConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- State v. McVeighSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- State v. RalstonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986
- United States v. Salvatore F. SpadaccinoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- State v. ChiarizioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.